• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Who is going to win this election in November?

Who will win the general presidential election?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 37 22.7%
  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 126 77.3%

  • Total voters
    163
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm pretty sure that story is a complete fabrication given the source. The whole idea that some men identify as a woman at that moment is such bullshit that I really can't begin to explain it to you and I find it extremely offensive. You know it at a very early age, about the same time you realize there is a difference between male and female. The law is a discrimination bill hiding behind protecting children from people who don't exist. It's already against law to harass or assault people in a restroom. I don't know if that's how it got sold to you, but it's a lie. It's completely absurd. It's saying we should discriminate against trans women (ignoring that trans men exist) because someone might pretend to be one. Assuming that someone did pretend to be a trans person, they could get past it by entering the women's room and claiming they're a trans man. They wouldn't even have to change clothes. The law assumes we're all guilty by default and I understand that you disagree with that. But that's what the law does and I'm glad that most people and companies have had such an extreme reaction against it. A similar bill almost got passed in my state, but Disney, AMC and Coca-Cola threatened to leave the state and our economy is apparently dependent on them, so it got pulled. So thank you Rick Grimes and Captain America, but other people aren't so lucky.

When a trans person is in a public restroom, the person most likely be attacked or harassed is the trans person. Surveys show it being about 70% of trans women facing some form of harassment or being attacked while using a public restroom.
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/47795...-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-risk
I don't disagree with what you just said, expect that it is naïve to assume that there exist no people who will abuse transgender rights.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/man-who-choked-girl-in-womens-restroom-stokes-alar/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/...bused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo
 
I don't disagree with what you just said, expect that it is naïve to assume that there exist no people who will abuse transgender rights.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/man-who-choked-girl-in-womens-restroom-stokes-alar/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/...bused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo
So we should punish all transgender people because cisgender people will pretend to be them? How does that make sense to you? Don't you believe in guilty until proven innocent or does that not apply to transgender people? Some people have pretended to be police officers so they could rob or attack people, but we don't punish all police officers. We don't because it's absurd to do that. It's already a crime to rob or attack people just like it's already a crime to attack someone in a restroom. Them pretending to be transgender doesn't make it a worse crime, it's just an excuse to view all transgender people with suspicion.

Apply the logic of this law to any other crime and it falls apart. It's a discrimination bill purely meant to harass and demonize trans women. They want people to associate us with pedophiles, just like they did with gay men for decades. It isn't protecting transgender rights, it's ripping them apart. You seem reasonable, so just think about it. Why would you create an extra law for something that's already against the law?
 
I expect the Republicans to enact most of their 2016 platform. It is doable, with one or two exceptions - they won't be able to make America into a Christian nation. They are, as well, working on making the First Amendment Defence Act a reality. This act allows any entity to declare religious exemption when refusing to serve someone they find objectionable.

Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines "discriminatory action" as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

  • alter the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person;
  • disallow a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
  • withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person; or
  • withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.
Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act
 
I expect the Republicans to enact most of their 2016 platform. It is doable, with one or two exceptions - they won't be able to make America into a Christian nation. They are, as well, working on making the First Amendment Defence Act a reality. This act allows any entity to declare religious exemption when refusing to serve someone they find objectionable.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act
That's horrendous.
 
What about the 10 to 11 million supposedly felonious acting illegal Mexican immigrants? Or the talk of a Muslim registry targeting immigrants and U.S. citizens, citing the WWll Japanese internment camps as an acceptable precedent?

I'm very concerned when my government targets segments of the population. Sure, deport illegal immigrants with an unsavory rap sheet, no complaints there. But how did Trump arrive at such a large number of people in the millions? Who is going to oversee this venture? Where are these people going to be detained and for how long? What are the potential abuses? How many U.S. Hispanic citizens are going to rounded up simply because they are guilty of being Hispanic?

What of the Muslim registry? Is being a certain religious denomination now so fearfully repugnant it merits mandatory registration with the government? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of religion but isn't the idea of such a thing contrary to a free society that prizes freedom?

The agenda Trump and his cronies are stating for all the public to read is going to involve "jackbooted thugs rounding up the malcontents." Who's next? The LGBT community? The mentally ill? Jews? Non-Christians? Atheists?

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.


Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.


Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Like the mutant registry in the X Men movies to give this a contemporary spin.

Also the movie The Siege where they did set up camps across New York just to round up any muslim as they were all considered a threat. ack.
 
I expect the Republicans to enact most of their 2016 platform. It is doable, with one or two exceptions - they won't be able to make America into a Christian nation. They are, as well, working on making the First Amendment Defence Act a reality. This act allows any entity to declare religious exemption when refusing to serve someone they find objectionable.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act
That's horrendous.
Do you know who is actively supporting and throwing money at that Act? The Church of $cientology. They can use that Act to further their religious cloaking subterfuge. $cientology is a vile cult so it doesn't surprise me they are pushing for that Act to become law. $cio's see LGBT's as mentally ill deviant criminals just in case you're not familiar with their tripe. Twisted sick stuff only an indoctrinated fanatic would believe.
http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol27i6/page34.htm (Warning, that is a cult link)
 
Do you know who is actively supporting and throwing money at that Act? The Church of $cientology. They can use that Act to further their religious cloaking subterfuge. $cientology is a vile cult so it doesn't surprise me they are pushing for that Act to become law. $cio's see LGBT's as mentally ill deviant criminals just in case you're not familiar with their tripe. Twisted sick stuff only an indoctrinated fanatic would believe.
http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol27i6/page34.htm (Warning, that is a cult link)

Yeah there is that. This is rather surprising. Didn't know that.
 
I don't disagree with what you just said, expect that it is naïve to assume that there exist no people who will abuse transgender rights.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/man-who-choked-girl-in-womens-restroom-stokes-alar/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/...bused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

What's your point? Because I'm not getting it. Taking your first example, are you telling me that a man that ignored existing laws against choking people, and assaulting minors in general, would only be stopped if there was yet a 3rd law saying he wasn't allowed in the bathroom? The misdemeanor on water closets will fix the problem two or more felony laws couldn't?

Because that's...let me put it this way, if you're not embarrassed, I'll be embarrassed for you.
 
People are writing guides on how to survive a Trump presidency. I asked my mother if she had heard of such a thing before. She had not.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/sur...one-living-in-donald-trumps-america/comments/

http://www.theworldisaterribleplace.com/ohcrap/

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/

In the last article, the author gives the following steps:
1.) Believe the autocrat
2.) Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
3.) Institutions will not save you.
4.) Be outraged.
5.) Don't make compromises.
6.) Remember the future.
 
Cross posted from elsewhere...

Let's break down some numbers...

Let's look at the big 5 states that swung his way to give him the White House.

Florida: Trump won all the electors by winning 49.06% of the vote. This was 120,000 more votes than Clinton.
Michigan: Trump won all the electors by winning 47.60% of the vote, or about 13,000 votes.
North Carolina: 49.9% of the vote wins them all. 170,000 vote win.
Pennsylvania: Trump won 48.84% of the state by 73,000 votes. Got all of them.
Wisconsin: 47.87% of the states voters voted for Trump - 28,000 votes.

These states accounted for 70 of of Trump's 306 Electoral Votes.

So, Trump didn't win a majority of the votes in *any* of those states. Granted, he won more than Clinton, but those 404,000 voters in those 5 states voted the way they did and that will overrides the 1,323,068 popular vote majority Clinton "won".

That's the system! Sound rigged? Nope! It's designed that way - for some reason. Proponents will say that's what the founders intended, but the Founders never said he had to be "you win 50.1% and you win all the electors." Each state can pick their own rules and the all or nothing rule didn't become the norm until the later 1800s.

(The Founders also intended the top two vote getters to be President and VP and didn't have parties so they didn't really have it all planned perfectly.)

So a man who won 42% of his party's primaries, a minority in enough of the right swing states, and came in second in the popular vote is planning his cabinet. That's our system.

That's his "mandate".

Enjoy your victory.


I would be more worried about the fact that

North Dakota has a population of circa 800 000 and has 3 college votes or circa 1 vote per 266 666 people

California has a population of circa 40m and 55 college votes or circa 1 per 727 000
 
However, one reason that I have heard for HB2 is that men may use it to go into women's restrooms or fitting rooms by claiming to identify as a woman at that moment.

Do you really think that the little plastic sign on a door is going to stop someone intent on doing harm to another?
 
So we should punish all transgender people because cisgender people will pretend to be them? How does that make sense to you? Don't you believe in guilty until proven innocent or does that not apply to transgender people? Some people have pretended to be police officers so they could rob or attack people, but we don't punish all police officers. We don't because it's absurd to do that. It's already a crime to rob or attack people just like it's already a crime to attack someone in a restroom. Them pretending to be transgender doesn't make it a worse crime, it's just an excuse to view all transgender people with suspicion.

Apply the logic of this law to any other crime and it falls apart. It's a discrimination bill purely meant to harass and demonize trans women. They want people to associate us with pedophiles, just like they did with gay men for decades. It isn't protecting transgender rights, it's ripping them apart. You seem reasonable, so just think about it. Why would you create an extra law for something that's already against the law?
I never said that we should punish transgender people, I said that the law should be modified to not just let any man or woman claiming to be the opposite sex at that particular moment from going to the opposite sex restroom.
 
Do you really think that the little plastic sign on a door is going to stop someone intent on doing harm to another?
No, but the current law in theory allows any man a legal avenue to go into a women's restroom, and that needs to be changed.
 
No, but the current law in theory allows any man a legal avenue to go into a women's restroom, and that needs to be changed.

Just as it allows a woman to go into a man's restroom. But lets overlook the fact that woman's restrooms only have cubicles so there is a degree of privac, yet men's restooms have a mix of urnials and cubicles so slightly less privacy.
 
No, but the current law in theory allows any man a legal avenue to go into a women's restroom, and that needs to be changed.

First, why? We are all human beings? Those that can't control themselves will be problematic regardless of the law. There are links everywhere (some I've quoted in other threads) that not even law enforcement thinks of this as an issue. Colorado has had laws on the books since 2006 that allow people to use the restroom of the gender they associate with, without a single issue.

It is fear of someone different without evidence to back it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top